RTI Corner

An application was filed by the Appellant under the RTI Act seeking information on two points regarding documents concerning disposal of his appeal against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The PIO denied the information under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
The Respondents submitted that the information sought was regarding the notings concerning disposal of the above appeal by the Appellate Committee and the comments etc. made on the appeal by the above committee. The Respondents stated that the above information cannot be provided as these are internal documents of the bank. The CIC ruled that there was no ground to invoke Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act to deny the information in this case. Since the disciplinary proceedings are over, there is no ground to deny the information sought by the Appellant. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the information, free of charge, within twenty days of the receipt of the order, under intimation to the Commission.
Comments
On the question of disclosure of the note-sheet of the vigilance files, there have been a series of orders of the CIC which are inconsistent with each other.
Citation:: Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta v. UCO Bank in File No. CIC/SH/A/2016/001227, Date of decision: 19th July 2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India

The appellant filed an application under the RTI Act before the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Central Information Commission (CIC) seeking information on the action taken on his representation dated 27.08.2011 addressed to the Chief Information Commissioner. The PIO informed that due to oversight, the action taken on the appellant’s representation dated 25.08.2011 instead of 27.08.2011 was provided. The respondent tendered her unconditional apology for this lapse and requested the Commission to condone the same. The CIC noted that correct information has not been provided. Taking a serious note of this lapse, the CIC counselled the PIO to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur. Further, the CIC directed the respondent to provide the action taken on the appellant’s representation dated 27.08.2011 to him within a period of four weeks.
Comments
In case of multiple correspondence from an applicant, the PIO must exercise due care to ensure that what has been sought is being provided. Such a mistake is likely in case of an applicant seeking information through multiple RTI applications.
Citation: Shri Deep Chandra Sharma v. Central Information Commission Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2016/001157 Dated 05.07.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India

The Appellant sought information regarding the certified documents related to the action taken on his email. The Respondent explained during the hearing that all the documents pertaining to the service records of the Appellant had been transferred to the Regional Office, Ahmedabad soon after his transfer to the said office and therefore, no records were available at their Amravati Branch office. The CIC held that the respondent could not substantiate or justify the reason for not providing the response as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission further noted that the First Appeal had also not been heard and decided by the concerned FAA. The CIC expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the Respondent in responding to the RTI application. The CIC instructed the PIO and the FAA to show-cause why action should not be taken under the provisions of the Act for this misconduct and negligence. The Commission also directed the FAA to explain why the First Appeal was not responded till date.
Comments
In many case, it is seen that RTI matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. In some instances in the past, the CIC has directed the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities. The public authorities must conduct regular trainings to ensure that the PIO’s do not end up facing penal proceedings.
Citation: Mr. B L Gangwani v. National Insurance Company Limited in Appeal No.:-CIC/MP/A/2016/001574-BJ; Date of Decision : 06.07.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India